Let’s Wrap This FReepathon Up Early, Folks…Donate Today!
Posted on 11/06/2019 1:17:57 PM PST by jazusamo
Full title: Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative
The notion that the Ukraine “whistleblower” is somehow entitled to anonymity was probably first peddled by the Flat Earth Society. It is a myth and demonstrably so.
It is understandable why unscrupulous Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have perpetuated the canard. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – which is presiding over the current impeachment “witch hunt” – Schiff is determined to conceal his own involvement with the faux “whistleblower” and his subsequent deceit about those machinations.
But it is incomprehensible why most of the media have failed to expose the hoax. Likely driven by their abiding liberal bias and pervasive laziness, they have simply accepted as scripture whatever Democrats and members of the intelligence community fed them. Did they bother to consult the prevailing law? Obviously not.
If they had done so, they would have discovered that nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else.
Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements.
However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a whistleblower might deserve anonymity under exigent circumstances of some sort. He or she must first qualify for whistleblower status under the governing law. Yet, in the present case, he does not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We have to stop referring to him as a “whistleblower” he’s a “leaker, democrat operative, and spy”.
You’re correct and Jarrett covers that in the article.
How is this so-called whisleblower different to the Watergate plumbers????
The whistle blower law is a bad joke. It simply legalizes the Deep State Coup.
“Whisteleblower’s” lawyer
Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
Replying to
@POTUS
#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826261939235979265
This is part of the #Resist campaign that hillary started. The people from the State Dept that are involved used to work for her. The rest are from intelligence agencies. All are obama admin people.
Trump should have figured out some way to clean house.
Eric Ciamarella. The name the Democrat media dare not mention.
WOW! That was posted in January 2017 and did not age well.
I understand. They manipulated this law/ reg to give the guy cover. My point is, he did essentially the same thing the Watergate plumbers did, although the plumbers spied on the DNC and the WB spied on the activities of the White House, which in my mind, is a thousand times worse.
Eric CHARLIE CIARAMELA.....come on down!!
Bump!
Let’s Wrap This FReepathon Up Early, Folks…Donate Today!
DJT Jr confirmed him this afternoon.
This law and the rules for Congress for impeachment are not that old. I think they were written by Alcee Hastings (Commie FL) in 1989.
“ He or she must first qualify for whistleblower status under the governing law. Yet, in the present case, he does not.”
Pretend whistleblower for a pretend impeachment.
Well, well well. WB and WB’s legal fleagle are two peas in a pod from way back when.
TY, Gregg Jarrett.
I think Jarrett meant to say "obvious" instead of "incomprehensible."
Can’t even spell his name without CIA, right?
He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative.......
Isn’t it pretty much the rule that if the President of the United States is engaged with a foreign leader, unless at a public event, that that engagement would be considered CLASSIFIED? If so, then he leaked classified information. Of which he didn’t even have firsthand knowledge of.
They arrested Julian Assange for doing the same exact thing, when it comes down to it. The content of the information is irrelevant.
Julian Assange got information from another party and put it out there.
Ciaramella got information from another party and put it out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.